Ben Cowdery
Last activity
Member since
Votes
9
Subscriptions
27
Replies
Ben Cowdery commented,
The general approach is to look at the breakdown of costs you have used to arrive at the TNP 1 you charge for other employers and then remove any costs which have been built in as profit or 'contribution' to you as a Training provider. That may have been set as a specific cost line or been applied across all cost lines as a set %. The reduced cost breakdown total should then be the TNP for your Staff's programme. Remember to keep TNP 2 as is. Ben
The general approach is to look at the breakdown of costs you have used to arrive at the TNP 1 you charge for other employers and then remove any costs which have been built in as profit or 'contri...
Ben Cowdery commented,
Thanks Ruth - I wasn't challenging your answer to the original question at all but just wanted to confirm my own understanding that if they held a L1 equivalence, despite the lower IA we would be obliged to start them at L2 rather than an 'working towards L1' which you have made clear, thanks a lot as always.
Thanks Ruth - I wasn't challenging your answer to the original question at all but just wanted to confirm my own understanding that if they held a L1 equivalence, despite the lower IA we would be o...
Ben Cowdery commented,
Just picking up on this thread belatedly. If the learner is on a L2 Standard and has L1 equivalence but is coming out with an IA at EL3, this wouldn't allow us to deliver a L1 would it? Based on what they currently 'hold' by way of APL equiv , aren't we obliged to start the L2 from the outset of the L2 App ? Steve Hewitt Ruth Canham-James
Just picking up on this thread belatedly. If the learner is on a L2 Standard and has L1 equivalence but is coming out with an IA at EL3, this wouldn't allow us to deliver a L1 would it? Based on w...
Ben Cowdery commented,
I am pretty sure there was an FRM in the early days of them for the opposite of FRM06...aims appearing after hard close it but could be that there isn't any more. And as you and Steve say....mark 'em as a known issue and have an explanation handy, I guess. I certainly agree that the days of using 1st August for funding purposes are and should be well behind us,,,any auditor worth their salt will filter the relevant DSAT to highlight aims starting then.
I am pretty sure there was an FRM in the early days of them for the opposite of FRM06...aims appearing after hard close it but could be that there isn't any more. And as you and Steve say....mark ...
Ben Cowdery commented,
Ruth Canham-James Will this not produce an FRM error if they were not reported for the aim at R14 and now are in the new R1 ILR?
Ruth Canham-James Will this not produce an FRM error if they were not reported for the aim at R14 and now are in the new R1 ILR?
Ben Cowdery commented,
My recommendation would be to place him on a BIL as from his last date of learning activity with you and then restart him with the new employer, remembering to extend his duration for his BIL time. you should not need to withdraw him as such. Hope this helps Ben
My recommendation would be to place him on a BIL as from his last date of learning activity with you and then restart him with the new employer, remembering to extend his duration for his BIL time....
Ben Cowdery commented,
Ben James How about a scenario where we want to change the FS start date from one part of the previous year (22/23), to another part of the previous year(22/23, for a learner who was carried into this year 23/24)? Having gone past R14 for that previous year but not this year (three weeks to go:) are we able make that sort of change? Thanks.
Ben James How about a scenario where we want to change the FS start date from one part of the previous year (22/23), to another part of the previous year(22/23, for a learner who was carried into t...
Ben Cowdery commented,
I wasn't thinking so much about achievement rates Steve, but rather the fact that the 22-23 requirement for them to sit the tests/assessments have not been met and therefore can they still be deemed to have completed the aim?. Or does that pose a risk more to the 20% App completion funding rather than making the FS aim completion incorrect?
I wasn't thinking so much about achievement rates Steve, but rather the fact that the 22-23 requirement for them to sit the tests/assessments have not been met and therefore can they still be deeme...